PDA

View Full Version : What can AC4 learn from Rockstar games?



Wolfmeister1010
07-10-2013, 01:14 AM
Hi everyone! This thread is about what I (and you) think AC4 could learn from Rockstar's best games (specifically Gta and Red Dead).

It is definitely way too late to actually make a difference in the final product with our opinions, but lets voice them just for fun.


1. Size

Allow the worlds in AC games have been big, but it would not hurt in the slightest to make it bigger. Rockstar's open world games are famous for being absolutely gigantic. GTA 5, which is made on current gen consoles, is looking like it may very well be the biggest game world of all time, except for maybe just cause 2.

They can do this, AND fill the world with a limitless amount of npcs and activities. I think that it is totally something that ubisoft could do.


2. AI and physics

The AI in AC games have always been pretty atrocious. AC1's were actually the best in my opinion. RDR has amazing AI (GtA AI is decent). The AI needs to be way better in AC4. Also, the physics in the games have been pretty low standard. I mean, even through all the patches in AC3, I still can roped art a guard off a building, only to have him hover in mid air before falling slowly to the ground.


3. Customization.

In GTA, customization has always been very expansive, and in GTA 5, you can customize EVERYTHING. Customization has slowly become very lazy and dull in AC, to the point where the only customizing you could do in AC3 is pick different weapons and choose from some ridiculous outfits and a few clothing dyes.

Customization should be way more expansive in AC4, with us getting control of the customization of weapons, the jackdaw, your pirate base, and individual parts of your outfit like in the multiplayer.


4. Stuff to do.

In GTA 4, RDR, and from what it looks like in GTA 5, there is TONS of stuff to do. From random encounters to fun games to cow herding to parachuting to golf to tennis and more. In AC3, ubisoft tried to make the world filled with stuff to do, but failed by making the clubs short and in satisfying, the frontier extremely empty with guards and convoys being rare, by making the games boring, and by leaving out the promised dynamic missions.

There needs to be WAY more activities and stuff to do in AC4. The world needs to feel way more alive and packed with activities than the previous ones. Add way more side missions, tons of fun unique assassin contracts, dynamic missions at land and sea, more collectables to find, and add more conversations and activities for the npcs to do. Also, stay true to the word that assassin tombs will return, and that forts and plantations will be fun and engaging.

LoyalACFan
07-10-2013, 01:19 AM
All of the above, plus...

5. Take your time with each development cycle and don't rush out a game that isn't finished

6. Don't treat your fans like **** with ridiculously overpriced DLC

7. Rise against the Tyranny of King Guillemot

Wolfmeister1010
07-10-2013, 01:23 AM
All of the above, plus...

5. Take your time with each development cycle and don't rush out a game that isn't finished

6. Don't treat your fans like **** with ridiculously overpriced DLC

7. Rise against the Tyranny of King Guillemot

5. I KNOW. Ash himself said that if there is a feature they have not finished, they will try to fix it, but if there is no time, they will simply cut it. Ubisoft is so afraid of delaying their games and would rather sell a buggy unrefined one than DARE try to please their fans.

6. As long as the dlcs are good, i will buy them. However, the TOKW docs were good story wise but a big let down in my opinion. Not worth all that money.

7. I don't know what you mean. He's the CEO of ubi right? I don't understand. Has he turned into a tyrant?

ArabianFrost
07-10-2013, 01:27 AM
I'd suggest you guys start to refer to AC5 when mentioning leasons and improvements. Darby said the story is written, so what remains now is polish. Barely any new features will be added from noe till October. Just a heads up so the AC reports, if true, serve their proper purpose.

LoyalACFan
07-10-2013, 01:32 AM
7. I don't know what you mean. He's the CEO of ubi right? I don't understand. Has he turned into a tyrant?

Yves Guillemot is the CEO of Ubisoft, yes, and he's the guy everyone blames for turning AC into a yearly cash cow. I don't know how true that accusation is, but #7 was meant as a joke more than anything.


I'd suggest you guys start to refer to AC5 when mentioning leasons and improvements. Darby said the story is written, so what remains now is polish. Barely any new features will be added from noe till October. Just a heads up so the AC reports, if true, serve their proper purpose.

Wasn't even really paying attention to the title, but yeah, AC5 or just AC in general.

ArabianFrost
07-10-2013, 01:32 AM
5. I KNOW. Ash himself said that if there is a feature they have not finished, they will try to fix it, but if there is no time, they will simply cut it. Ubisoft is so afraid of delaying their games and would rather sell a buggy unrefined one than DARE try to please their fans.

6. As long as the dlcs are good, i will buy them. However, the TOKW docs were good story wise but a big let down in my opinion. Not worth all that money.

7. I don't know what you mean. He's the CEO of ubi right? I don't understand. Has he turned into a tyrant?

Basically, the devs are innocent. I don't understand your point about delivering a buggy game. So Ashraf will remove features if he feels they are buggy or unpolished. This is the opposite of what you're saying.


As for Yves, he is the guy that FORCES the devs to release games prematurely and at a fatigue-causing annual release calendar. Without him, devs like Ashraf could have their development cycles extended and therefore more stuff is added in, but Yves is obsessed with selling an incomplete AC each year than selling the COMPLETE vision of the respective devs.

I-Like-Pie45
07-10-2013, 01:40 AM
Without Yves

AC3 could've been the utlimate AC game and it might've even had a satisfying ending. It could've even made us care about Desmond, if the writers had enough time to plot things out properly.

but thanks to Yves business practice

we get a game with rushed campaign and side content, sterile world, glitches and bugs abound, and so much cut **** (Connor's soliloquy, dynamic weather, New York before the fire, random events, etc.). But at least Desmond is dead, even if there was no satisfaction in watching him die.

but yves don't care cause theres all the money

Wolfmeister1010
07-10-2013, 01:59 AM
Without Yves

AC3 could've been the utlimate AC game and it might've even had a satisfying ending. It could've even made us care about Desmond, if the writers had enough time to plot things out properly.

but thanks to Yves business practice

we get a game with rushed campaign and side content, sterile world, glitches and bugs abound, and so much cut **** (Connor's soliloquy, dynamic weather, New York before the fire, random events, etc.). But at least Desmond is dead, even if there was no satisfaction in watching him die.

but yves don't care cause theres all the money

Agree with you but there is dynamic weather...so....

Wolfmeister1010
07-10-2013, 02:00 AM
Basically, the devs are innocent. I don't understand your point about delivering a buggy game. So Ashraf will remove features if he feels they are buggy or unpolished. This is the opposite of what you're saying.


As for Yves, he is the guy that FORCES the devs to release games prematurely and at a fatigue-causing annual release calendar. Without him, devs like Ashraf could have their development cycles extended and therefore more stuff is added in, but Yves is obsessed with selling an incomplete AC each year than selling the COMPLETE vision of the respective devs.

Ash said that if a certain feature is bad or incomplete then they either attempt to fix it but have no problem just dropping it. It has nothing to do with bugs. Sorry if I caused confusion

I-Like-Pie45
07-10-2013, 02:02 AM
Agree with you but there is dynamic weather...so....

Yeah, snow makes it harder to run in the Frontier. That's about the extent it goes, nowhere near the levels of lakes freezing and secrets of the game map opening up for specific seasons only they had promised.

Jexx21
07-10-2013, 02:04 AM
Wolf is talking about the actual weather system, not the seasons system.

ArabianFrost
07-10-2013, 02:10 AM
Ash said that if a certain feature is bad or incomplete then they either attempt to fix it but have no problem just dropping it. It has nothing to do with bugs. Sorry if I caused confusion

Not at all. I am just saying that Ashraf's statement is reassuring. Basically, what he said is "if it isn't polished it won't be in", so this ensure a fully polished, albeit possibly lacking game. It ensures polish which is what we want, so I just wanted to confirm that.

Rugterwyper32
07-10-2013, 02:14 AM
I agree with these. I gotta say, though, I'm sure they'd add a ton of stuff if Yves stopped strangling the devs to come up with yearly releases. We've seen the ambition for all that is there, give the dev team time to optimize and have the game fully made and I'm sure it would work out.

And biggest game of all time? Look at this, look at whatever comparison to San Andreas they've made, and you'll get the idea

http://cdn.unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/large-video-game-worlds2.jpg

And just because you mentioned Just Cause 2 as the biggest videogame world, well... Sorry, that's actually wrong:

http://cdn.unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/size.jpg

Wolfmeister1010
07-10-2013, 02:18 AM
Yeah, snow makes it harder to run in the Frontier. That's about the extent it goes, nowhere near the levels of lakes freezing and secrets of the game map opening up for specific seasons only they had promised.

Um...there is also dynamic snow, drizzles, and storms.

Wolfmeister1010
07-10-2013, 02:19 AM
I agree with these. I gotta say, though, I'm sure they'd add a ton of stuff if Yves stopped strangling the devs to come up with yearly releases. We've seen the ambition for all that is there, give the dev team time to optimize and have the game fully made and I'm sure it would work out.

And biggest game of all time? Look at this, look at whatever comparison to San Andreas they've made, and you'll get the idea

http://cdn.unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/large-video-game-worlds2.jpg



And just because you mentioned Just Cause 2 as the biggest videogame world, well... Sorry, that's actually wrong:

http://cdn.unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/size.jpg

...........oh

Jexx21
07-10-2013, 02:25 AM
I actually care little about the size of the game world. In fact, in open world games I sort of prefer smaller feeling games, like Arkham City. I like getting used to an area and feeling like I know the place by heart.

In huge open worlds I've only really felt that way in first person games. In the AC/GTA style of open world games, I never feel like I ever get to know the cities by heart. In fact, I wouldn't mind an Assassin's Creed that takes place in a small open world someday, similar to Arkham City.

Batman: Arkham really is an amazing series.

LoyalACFan
07-10-2013, 02:27 AM
^ @ Rutgerwyper; Map size only matters to a certain extent, though. IMO AC1, AC2, and AC3 were all plenty big enough. The real objective of a good open-world game is to pack the map full of unique and interesting content. I played JC2, and huge as it was, I got bored with it very quickly because there simply wasn't that much to do other than blow **** up. All Assassin's Creed games so far have fallen prey to similar problems, albeit to a lesser extent since city traversal remains fun for a long time and there's more side missions. Hopefully AC4 will improve upon this with the naval battles on the open ocean and the regenerating plantations.

(On a side note, your means of traversal also affects how big the map needs to be; AC maps can get away with being smaller since you're almost always on foot, but if you have a racecar or fighter jet, you have to make it bigger).

Rugterwyper32
07-10-2013, 02:46 AM
^ @ Rutgerwyper; Map size only matters to a certain extent, though. IMO AC1, AC2, and AC3 were all plenty big enough. The real objective of a good open-world game is to pack the map full of unique and interesting content. I played JC2, and huge as it was, I got bored with it very quickly because there simply wasn't that much to do other than blow **** up. All Assassin's Creed games so far have fallen prey to similar problems, albeit to a lesser extent since city traversal remains fun for a long time and there's more side missions. Hopefully AC4 will improve upon this with the naval battles on the open ocean and the regenerating plantations.

(On a side note, your means of traversal also affects how big the map needs to be; AC maps can get away with being smaller since you're almost always on foot, but if you have a racecar or fighter jet, you have to make it bigger).

I will admit I can agree with this. Cities the size of AC3 are as big as I want them to get (and thank goodness for fast travel). The size of the cities should also account for the freerunning skills as well. Gotta take vertical navigation into account. You basically are traversing cities on two levels rather than one, so there's also that: Cities are big enough taking that into account.

Wolfmeister1010
07-10-2013, 04:09 AM
Wow I am the opposite as you guys. For me, the bigger the cities, and the bigger the world, the better. I love batman arkham city, but I really don't like how small the world is.

However, i agree that huge worlds are pointless if they have nothing to fill it up with. Just cause 2 tried to justify that by putting in 368 locations which take a while to complete. I got very very bored very quickly as well. I spent about 7 months completing every location in the game, because I had to keep taking long breaks because it got so boring. After the game ended and I completed every location, the game said "yay! Now you are free to explore and free roam without the worry of the main campaign!" And I was like "....I would rather shoot myself.

Random/dynamic encounters add so much to the world it is funny. Imagine red dead redemption without random encounters. It would not be nearly as fun. With random encounters, the AC4 world would be 10 times as fun to explore.

STDlyMcStudpants
07-10-2013, 04:17 AM
Nothing...its too late lol
But the day games try to learn something from other games is the day the game world starts to die....hence 1 billion generic FPS games this past generation, thanks COD!
Im all for developers playing a game and saying this is awesome, lets make it better..but in no way do i want them to say hey lets make a copy of this with a different skin
Look at the game Darksiders...it steals from pretty much every hit game from the mid 2000s
not inspired, but blatantly steals lol you can tell the difference between knock offs and paying homage while playing
I think the AC game world is a perfect size, not too small and not too over whelming...i believe the same goes for brotherhood and revelations
I didnt want a bigger map there either
I do however want them to bring more life to their cities..which i saw a lot of in the e3 trailer..which has me excited :D

LoyalACFan
07-10-2013, 04:33 AM
Wow I am the opposite as you guys. For me, the bigger the cities, and the bigger the world, the better. I love batman arkham city, but I really don't like how small the world is.

However, i agree that huge worlds are pointless if they have nothing to fill it up with. Just cause 2 tried to justify that by putting in 368 locations which take a while to complete. I got very very bored very quickly as well. I spent about 7 months completing every location in the game, because I had to keep taking long breaks because it got so boring. After the game ended and I completed every location, the game said "yay! Now you are free to explore and free roam without the worry of the main campaign!" And I was like "....I would rather shoot myself.

Random/dynamic encounters add so much to the world it is funny. Imagine red dead redemption without random encounters. It would not be nearly as fun. With random encounters, the AC4 world would be 10 times as fun to explore.

Thing is, though, the bigger the map gets, the more time it takes to program enough content to keep it interesting.

AC2_alex
07-10-2013, 04:40 AM
Detail is more important than size to me. Look at Arkham City. Not that big of a world, at all, but absolutely PACKED with detail and content.

I liked the Frontier, but it felt empty sometimes.

Sushiglutton
07-10-2013, 04:52 PM
I like R*'s strategy after GTA4. Working on other games than GTA4, but at the same time projects that they can use in GTA5. RDR for wilderness, Midnight Club for racing, Max Payne for gunplay, L.A. Noire for old L.A. I wish Ubi could maybe take a break from AC and make another historical action adventure IP with stuff they could then perhaps use to some extent in AC. They used to have PoP, but it hasn't been helpful for AC since forever.